2006 (1) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for waiver of pre-deposit amount and stay of recovery.
- Discrepancy in payment of excise duty.
- Adjudication of refund claim and subsequent Show Cause Notice.
- Confirmation of demand by Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).
- Stay application post sanction of refund amount.
- Legal principles relied upon by the appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of pre-deposit amount and stay of recovery. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, claimed they had paid excess excise duty due to a miscalculation, paying 32% instead of 24%. Initially, the Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned a refund claim, which was challenged by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the original order. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of the erroneously refunded amount, leading to the current appeal by the appellants and their stay application.

The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I, Nagpur, confirmed the demand raised in the second Show Cause Notice, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur. The appellants, having received the refund amount, sought a stay on the operation of the Order-in-Appeal pending disposal of the appeal. The appellants relied on legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing that the goods were supplied under contract prices and the buyers paid accordingly, indicating no recovery of extra duty from customers. Citing previous decisions, the appellants argued that the issue at hand aligned with established legal principles, leading to a prima facie case in their favor.

In light of the arguments presented and the legal principles invoked by the appellants, the Tribunal found merit in their case and granted a stay on the operation of the impugned order. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the appellants' reliance on previous judgments and the specific circumstances surrounding the payment of excise duty in this case. Consequently, the application for stay was allowed, providing temporary relief to the appellants pending the final resolution of the appeal.